" If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system." [Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway:

"The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up...How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?"

“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009

‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009

“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,"……."There can be no argument about that.”

Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009

“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community.... We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010

“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”

Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010

[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”

Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011

“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”

Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011

“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012

“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013

“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”

Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013

“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years.”

Scientists have long been aware that climate change would not happen at a fixed rate and could include periods where temperatures remain stable for 10 to 20 years, but admitted they had failed to explain this to the public in the past.

Prof Rowan Sutton, Director of Climate Research at the University of Reading, said: “Within the field we have taken for granted that there will be variations in the rate of warming, it is totally accepted and is no surprise ...[it] would correct to say that wasn’t the message that we communicated more widely and that probably is a failing.”

Let us not forget that the term " Climate Change" was thought up by the Climate alarmists because"Global Warming" wasn't considered alarming enough! Why did we adopt their term? The alarmist's basic premise is that man-made CO2 causes the most significant amount of global warming and that in turn causes all of the hundreds of catastrophes that they allege follow. So since they believe CO2 is the FIRST CAUSE of global warming and all the other catastrophes are secondary and tertiary effects we should concentrate on disproving that man-made CO2 is the cause of it all. We skeptics should drop "Climate Change" from our lexicon and go back to calling it "Global Warming" because as the so-called "pause" continues to lengthen and CO2 continues to increase it will be easier to convince the public that CO2 is not the problem. As we skeptics already know, extreme weather events will never let up and we will never be able to prove anything to the public based on these extreme events.

The global warming agenda was perpetrated by the global banking elite for the purpose of introducing carbon tax credits. The GW theory IS the conspiracy theory and is nothing more than another tax grab as we move rapidly towards the New World Order. We defend the truth and help protect the sheeples from the NWO. Woof woof.

I've heard that as CO2 increases, there should be a diminishing marginal return as regard to the greenhouse effect. How theoretically is this meant to square with the notion of accelerating warming as per the models? I understand the notion of positive feedbacks, but why aren't the feedbacks themselves proportional to the direct warming effect of CO2?

It doesn't square, but you can program a model to say anything you like. The net feedbacks are negative anyway, including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor, which all models falsely assume to be a positive feedback. Same with clouds. The models are little more than expensive computer games.

Watch the global warming hoax on YouTube. Many of the scientists on the video worked for the IPCC and quit in disgust when they saw how the data was manipulated. It's very informative and they're REAL scientists

The planet is warming naturally from the Little Ice Age — one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. Human activity has nothing measurable to do with it. No human "fingerprint of global warming" has ever been found.

Climate Science Wrong For 120 Years Climate Science Predicted in 1895 A New Ice Age, by 1902 The Glaciers Were Melting And by 1912 The Ice Age Was Back. It would appear that climate science is cyclic much like the weather and ultimately the climate, it struggles to predict with any degree of accuracy or precision.

This is worth a look just for the last paragraph, which undermines most of the rest of it. Under the optimistic sub-heading ‘Warming to recommence’ we find:‘Despite the warming hiatus, Knutti is convinced there is no reason to doubt either the existing calculations for the climate activity of greenhouse gases or the latest climate models.’

“Short-term climate fluctuations can easily be explained. They do not alter the fact that the climate will become considerably warmer in the long term as a result of greenhouse gas emissions,” says Knutti.

‘He believes that global warming will recommence as soon as solar activity, aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and weather phenomena such as El Niño naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.’ [bold added]

Translation: as soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?

I love global warming! I also am running short of patience on this delay! I purchased land 4 mile inland... in anticipation of oceanfront property!Please send suggestions for creating more CLIMATE CHANGE.

The trivial truth about the "pause" is that it is not a "pause", that is, an inflection point, at all. It is a maximum instead. Temperatures fall on both sides of the maximum: the warming period in the late 20th century, caused by the unprecedented solar activity, the highest in 9000 years according to some measurements, led to the recent maximum, to be followed by cooling, visible in this year's weather already, due to the solar activity abating.

precisely, yet the scientists are using excuses which prove their models wrong in order to try to save the credibility of their models. That is how desperate they have become. Why is anyone taking any of them seriously anymore?

When I was still teaching in college, I used to present my class with some incorrect information, such as statistics showing that far more women than men contracted HIV. I would then invite them to explain why this might be so. After about half an hour of some remarkably clever "explanations" I would then reveal my duplicity. The lesson was two-fold. First of all, don't accept statistics or similar information just because someone in authority gives it to you. And secondly, recognize how easy it is to come up with justifications for bad data.